In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 108 / 2011
1) Mrs. Neelam Mahalka,
S/o Santosh Mahalka,
237, Dharam Tale Road, Flat no.C9,
3rd Floor, Gupta Complex Budge Budge,
Kolkata – W.B. - 137, Pin-700137 ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd.,
Corporate Officer, 6th Floor, Leela Business Park,
Andheri Kunta Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-4000059.
2) The Manager, Claim Deptt.
HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd.,10/2, Metro Tower, 1, Hochimin Sarani,
Kolkata - 700071, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
3) The Manager, HDFC Bank Retail Asset Division,
Gillander House, 1st Floor,
AI, 8, N. S. Road, Kolkata – 700001, P.S. Hare Street --------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 19 Dated 11/09/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Mrs. Neelam Mahalka against the o.ps. HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that the vehicle availed by complainant with financial assistance of o.p. no.3 which was stolen from Dankuni on 8.3.12 and o.p. nos.1 and 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant and complainant sought for a direction restraining o.p. no.3 from deducting EMIs till realization of insurance claim and the vehicle of the complainant was insured and the vehicle no.WB-58K 5273 as private car package policy no.VP00534101000100 against the sum insured of Rs.4,50,000/- for the period from 15.9.09 to 14.10.10 midnight and premium was Rs.17,828/- under o.p.nos.1 and 2 and complainant was not defaulter at the time of stealing away of the vehicle and at that time the vehicle was duly insured after making payment of valid insurance premium and the same was repudiated by o.p. nos.1 and 2. Hence the case.
All the o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant took the vehicle on hiring basis as we find from the materials on record after due scrutiny of the relevant papers and we are of firm views that the vehicle was taken by complainant on hiring basis and in that event the repudiation by o.p. nos.1 and 2 is quite unjustified and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India published in SC 2010 Vol II TAC 374 we are of the view that complainant is entitled to 75% of the sum assured (after standard deduction) and we find that o.p. nos.1 and 2 had sufficient deficiencies on their part by repudiating the claim of the complainant being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
The petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost as against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and without cost as against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay 75% of insured sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four thousand fifty thousand) only alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till full realization and out of the said amount o.p. nos.1 and 2 shall clear all the dues payable by complainant to o.p. n o.3 first of all and thereafter shall make payment the balance amount to complainant and o.p. nos.1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
